Forums

Development Strategies Topic

Heard ST development is done on a per game, not per plate appearance/inning basis. However, is this the case in the regular season as well? If so, I was thinking that I should minimize pitch counts/innings in the minor leagues and play as many people as I can, since MiL record is really irrelevant.

I believe I saw in a developer chat that games played are more important than AB's or IP's. If a player gets 400 AB's in 100 games, he won't have the opportunity to develop as much as a player who gets 400 AB's in 162 games. I could be wrong, but I do believe that was the type of explanation given.

I didn't say it was the only factor. But, you could try that and tell us how it works. The example given above was equal number of at bats over more games. Do you believe development will happen even when a player is fatigued and unable to play?

Posted by t2bott on 3/16/2013 5:20:00 PM (view original):I believe I saw in a developer chat that games played are more important than AB's or IP's. If a player gets 400 AB's in 100 games, he won't have the opportunity to develop as much as a player who gets 400 AB's in 162 games. I could be wrong, but I do believe that was the type of explanation given.

Transferring this thought over to pitching, 100 innings in 100 games would be better than 100 innings in 25 games.

So, in order to develop future SP, it would be better to use them as RP with a PC of 5/5, right?

On a related note, I'm getting to the point, about 120 games in, where my lower durability prospects are starting to dip below 90%. Is there any drawback to continuing to play them, beyond a possible drop in performance? Specifically, does a player's chance of being injured increase as his % drops?

On the flip side, is putting them on the inactive list any different, from a development standpoint, than rest (beyond the possibility that "resting" players could play if needed)?

Your going to extremes Mike. You can take any debate to that if you like, but it doesn't prove a point. I have had a great deal of success using a 4 man rotation in the minors. They throw 40 to 60 pitches an outing. I have no problems with fatigue with my pitchers or position players and they have come closer to their expected progressions than when I used to just put them at the max pitch counts and 90% or less replacement level for fatigue. Obviously, this is done for true ML prospects only. The career minor leaguers are used up like rented mules.

Posted by pkoopman on 3/17/2013 2:53:00 PM (view original):On a related note, I'm getting to the point, about 120 games in, where my lower durability prospects are starting to dip below 90%. Is there any drawback to continuing to play them, beyond a possible drop in performance? Specifically, does a player's chance of being injured increase as his % drops?

On the flip side, is putting them on the inactive list any different, from a development standpoint, than rest (beyond the possibility that "resting" players could play if needed)?

The lower they go, the higher the risk of injury.

I don't think there's any difference between inactive and rest, as not playing is still not playing.

What you'll want to do in the future is monitor them such that you don't let them get below 97% or so. Inactivate them for a few games once they get to 96% until they get back up to 100%, and then reactivate them. This will keep them from being inactivated for any excessively long periods of time.

Of course, this only really applies to prospects with ML potential. If their ratings indicate that they are career minor leaguers, then you can abuse them all you want as they are easily replaceable.

Related to this, does anyone actively manage their minor league teams? I've always just put my MiL teams on autopilot, but could I see a big improvement in development with some players if I took a more active approach?

Identify who your major league prospects are, and make sure they're getting regular playing time. You don't need to micro-manage your minors to do this, but a quick check-in on a daily basis should be enough.

I put my prospects on my watch list to follow how they're doing. As long as you see they're accumulating ABs or IPs, you should be OK.

Posted by t2bott on 3/17/2013 8:40:00 PM (view original):Your going to extremes Mike. You can take any debate to that if you like, but it doesn't prove a point. I have had a great deal of success using a 4 man rotation in the minors. They throw 40 to 60 pitches an outing. I have no problems with fatigue with my pitchers or position players and they have come closer to their expected progressions than when I used to just put them at the max pitch counts and 90% or less replacement level for fatigue. Obviously, this is done for true ML prospects only. The career minor leaguers are used up like rented mules.

I don't think it's an extreme or, even if it is, if appearances drive development, that's what you should do.

So do you really believe it's appearances? If so, what I outlined is the way to go. But, to me, that would be a flawed game engine.

Posted by bjschumacher on 3/17/2013 9:29:00 PM (view original):Related to this, does anyone actively manage their minor league teams? I've always just put my MiL teams on autopilot, but could I see a big improvement in development with some players if I took a more active approach?

I manage all the way down to Low A setup B pitcher. I try to get every team into the playoffs for the extra at bats and playing time .

Besides its kind of foolish to have five minor league teams at 10-134.